Advertisement

Knowledge Cartography for Controversies: The Iraq Debate

  • Simon J. Buckingham Shum
  • Alexandra Okada
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

In analyzing controversies and debates – which would include reviewing a literature in order to plan research, or assessing intelligence to formulate policy – there is no one worldview which can be mapped, for instance as a single, coherent concept map. The cartographic challenge is to show which facts are agreed and contested, and the different kinds of narrative links that use facts as evidence to define the nature of the problem, what to do about it, and why. We will use the debate around the invasion of Iraq to demonstrate the methodology of using a knowledge mapping tool to extract key ideas from source materials, in order to classify and connect them within and across a set of perspectives of interest to the analyst. We reflect on the value that this approach adds, and how it relates to other argument mapping approaches.

Keywords

Mapping Tool Argumentation Scheme Knowledge Mapping Argument Mapping Visual Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Buckingham Shum, S.J., Uren, V., Li, G., Sereno, B. and Mancini, C. (2007). Modelling Naturalistic Argumentation in Research Literatures: Representation and Interaction Design Issues. In International Journal of Intelligent Systems, (Special Issue on Computational Models of Natural Argument. (Eds.) C. Reed and F. Grasso, 22(1), pp. 17–47.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, M. (2005). One War, Many Theories. GlobalArgument.net Experiment 1:http://kmi.open. ac.uk/projects/GlobalArgument.net/experiments/1/OneWarManyTheories.rtfGoogle Scholar
  3. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Conklin, J. and Begeman, M.L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6, 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Green, T.R.G. (1989). Cognitive Dimensions of Notations. In Proceedings of HCI’89 Conference: People and Computers V. (Eds.) A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay, pp. 443–460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/Cognitive Dimensions Google Scholar
  6. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. Isenmann, S. and Reuter, W.D. (1997). IBIS: A Convincing Concept but a Lousy Instrument? In Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM Press, 163–173.Google Scholar
  8. Kahane, A. (2004). Solving Tough Problems. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  9. Okada, A. (2005). Mapping the Iraq Debate with Nestor Web Cartographer and Compendium software mapping toot. 1st Web Mapping Forum Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  10. Okada, A. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2006). Knowledge Mapping with Compendium in Academic Research and Online Education. 22nd ICDE World Conference, 3–6 Sept. 2006, http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/osc/docs/KnowledgeMapping_ICDE2006.pdf
  11. Okada, A., Tomadaki, E., Buckingham Shum, S. and Scott, P. (2007). Combining Knowledge Mapping and Videoconferencing. Open Education Conference: Localizing and Learning. Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  12. OpenLearn (2007). Project OpenLearn, http://openlearn.open.ac.uk
  13. Papadopoulos, N. (2004). Conflict Cartography: A Methodology Designed to Support the Efficient and Effective Resolution of Complex, Multi-Stakeholder Conflicts. ViewCraft White Paper, March 2004. http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/compendium/papers/conflictcartography42.03.pdf
  14. Rittel, H.W.J. (1972) Second Generation Design Methods. Interview in: Design Methods Group 5th Anniversary Report: DMG Occasional Paper, 1, 5–10. Reprinted (1984) In Developments in Design Methodology, (Ed.) N. Cross pp. 317–327, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Selvin, A. (1999). Supporting Collaborative Analysis and Design with Hypertext Functionality. Journal of Digital Information, 1 (4), Article No. 16, 1999-01-14: http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v01/i04/Selvin
  16. Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Horth, D., Palus, C. and Sierhuis, M. (2002). Knowledge Art: Visual Sensemaking Using Combined Compendium and Visual Explorer Methodologies. The Art of Management and Organisation Conference, King’s College London, (3–6 September). http://compendiuminstitute.org/compendium/papers/aomo2002Compendium.doc
  17. Tariq, A. (2004). The price of occupying Iraq. Green Left Weekly, 3 March, http://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/573/32908.
  18. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  19. van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In: Visualizing Argumentation. (Eds.) P.A. Kirschner, Buckingham Shum, S. and Carr, C. London Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, pp. 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton Keynes, BuckinghamshireUK

Personalised recommendations